By Mohsen Hasheminasab

In an era of increasing cross-border trade and digital innovation, the lack of standardised contractual frameworks for international intellectual property (IP) transactions creates legal uncertainty and commercial risk. In a recent research project, I explored the feasibility of developing IncoIPterms – a set of globally accepted contractual terms for IP agreements modelled after the (or International Commercial Terms) widely used in the international trade of goods. By analyzing the key legal challenges, including the territorial nature of IP and its intangible subject matter, and offering practical solutions, I hoped to plant the seed for the future development of IncoIPterms that could similarly enhance legal predictability, reduce disputes, and so promote more efficient international commerce in intangible assets.

Why Look to Incoterms?

The Incoterms, developed by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), are a globally recognized set of rules for the international sale of goods. These terms have become an essential part of international trade law. They clearly define the obligations, risks, and costs borne by buyers and sellers, helping to minimize disputes and standardize practices across jurisdictions.

This success prompts the question: Can we replicate this model for intellectual property? Enter the concept of IncoIPterms: uniform international commercial terms specifically designed for IP transactions.

The TRIPS Gap and the Need for IncoIPterms

While the TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) aimed to harmonize IP law globally, its requirement for minimum standards has often led to the maximization of IP rights instead. The result? A growing imbalance between IP protection and the need for legal consistency in cross-border commerce.

IncoIPterms could fill this gap by offering flexible, standardized contract language for IP transactions,  in the same manner as Incoterms operate in the trade of goods.

Key Challenges

Of course, developing international IP terms is not a straightforward proposition. Some of the main obstacles include:

• The territorial principle in IP: Unlike Incoterms, which govern private commercial agreements, IP rights are enforced through national legal systems. The territorial nature of IP rights complicates any attempt at standardization.
• The intangibility of IP: Incoterms apply to physical goods, whereas IP involves intangible assets—requiring entirely different legal considerations.
• The diversity of IP subjects: The subject matter of IP deals varies widely. This diversity makes universal standardization a real challenge.
• A lack of global consensus: The establishment of standardized IP contractual terms is essential, but such terms must be widely accepted by all relevant jurisdictions to have practical utility. Without international consensus, such terms would lack the legal legitimacy required to resolve disputes or provide certainty in commercial transactions.

Viable Solutions

While there are hurdles to be met in the development of IncoIPterms, none is insurmountable and solutions do exist:

• Clarify the scope: IncoIPterms wouldn’t regulate the granting of IP rights (which is the domain of states) but rather the commercial use of those rights after they’re granted. Like Incoterms, they could function without interfering with state sovereignty. In fact, one of the main reasons for the creation of Incoterms was the territorial principle and variations in national law, so this challenge is not new.
• Embrace IP’s intangibility: Though intangible, IP assets still benefit from contractual clarity. Indeed, given the complexities and flexibilities inherent in establishing the subject and scope of IP rights, standardized terms are all the more necessary to reduce confusion and foster greater legal certainty in IP transactions.
• Focus on core agreement types: While the subject matter of IP contracts may differ, they generally fall into a few main categories: assignment, permission for use or sale, sale of IP-based goods, joint ventures, and confidentiality agreements. By establishing standardized terms for these core categories, a framework can be built that accommodates diversity while remaining aligned with the territorial nature of IP, except in the case of assignment. As with Incoterms, exclusions and updates can be applied regularly.
• Leverage existing practices: Customary international IP practices already exist. By building on these foundations, IncoIPterms could gain traction and acceptance across legal systems.

A Path Forward

Despite the complex nature of IP law, the potential benefits of creating standardized international contractual terms are clear. The criteria, standards, and categories under IncoIPterms must differ from those of Incoterms, of course, to suit the unique nature of IP. But just as Incoterms have helped streamline trade in tangible goods, so too could IncoIPterms promote smoother, more predictable global commerce in intangible assets.

The vision is not to override national IP systems, it should be stressed, but to offer a contractual toolkit that can be used across jurisdictions, thereby reducing ambiguity, enhancing efficiency, and ultimately supporting innovation and fair trade. Recognizing the distinction between the creation and commercial exploitation of IP rights, along with existing international practices, reveals that such international IP terms are both feasible and beneficial.

Developing IncoIPterms will require thoughtful legal design, international cooperation, and a strong understanding of both trade and IP law. But the reward—a predictable, transparent, and more dispute-resistant framework for global IP transactions—makes this a concept well worth pursuing.

Mohsen Hasheminasab is an International Visiting Research Trainee with IP Osgoode at �첥��Ƶ, an LLM student of International Commercial and Economic Law at the Department of Law, University of Tehran, and an Attorney at Law with the Iranian Central Bar Association. He is currently based in Toronto.

Have thoughts or feedback? Join the conversation by leaving a comment below or contacting the author at: hasheminasabmohsen@yahoo.com

The post Can We Develop ‘IncoIPterms’ for Intellectual Property?  appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Xiang is an IPilogue Writer, a Senior Fellow with the IP Innovation Clinic, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

For the first time in decades, the US Supreme Court will engage with enablement in patent applications. On November 4th, 2022, the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen v Sanofi, against the . Specifically, Amgen seeks to appeal a , in which the court found Amgen’s patents invalid for lack of enablement. 

The requirement of enablement in US patent law is codified in , which requires that the specification of a patent application “enable any person skilled in the art…to make and use” the invention in question. The in Amgen v Sanofi is whether this statutory requirement governs enablement (that the specification teaches those skilled in the art to “make and use” the claimed invention) or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art “to reach the full scope of the claimed embodiments” without “undue experimentation” (characterized by substantial “time and effort”). 

In 2014, Amgen sued Sanofi for infringing on its patents concerning drugs for lowering cholesterol. The genus patents specifically cover that bind to the PCSK9 protein in the body. The patents disclose the amino acid sequences for 26 antibodies that bind to one or more of 15 residues found on the PCSK9 protein. Importantly, the claims at issue are considered , in which the antibodies are not claimed based on their structural components but rather on what they do. 

On January 3rd, 2023, many interested parties submitted to offer the Supreme Court their take on the issue to be considered. For instance, in a brief submitted by a group of , it was argued that the Federal Circuit’s standard imposes “an impossible burden” on patentees and that such a decision represents “a categorical shift in thinking away from teaching the PHOSITA and towards a precise delineation of the boundaries of the claim”. The professors further submitted that such a heightened requirement would be especially burdensome for patentees seeking to protect their innovations in the fields of chemistry and the life sciences, as “a chemical genus with any decently large number of species will never be able to satisfy the new enablement standard”. 

Other parties in support of Amgen presented some other reasons as well. In their amicus brief, the stated that the court’s reasoning “leaves patent practitioners guessing about how to advise client-inventors regarding the extent of disclosure required”. The , warned of the adverse impact that the new enablement requirement might have on the effectiveness of patent incentives for investors to contribute towards research and development, especially in the case of startups and smaller companies.

Moreover, the has filed a motion for leave to participate in oral argument, claiming a “paramount and unique institutional interest and perspective” – that is, the perspective of individuals and companies working in the chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology fields. CHAL asserts that the Federal Circuit’s enablement standard potentially jeopardizes the benefits of many modern innovations and that adhering to the plain meaning of 35 USC s. 112 should continue to be the prevailing approach.

The Supreme Court’s decision regarding the enablement standard for functional claims could also have wide-reaching implications that spill over into other fields, such as technology and computer-implemented inventions. By too narrowly focusing on the “full scope of the claim” and “undue experimentation” instead of on what those skilled in the art could determine from the specification, it is unclear how broader claims for (such as those that describe the desired result to be achieved by the AI rather than its structural components or any specific software solutions) might fare in the face of such a standard. 

Amgen v Sanofi is scheduled to be heard by the US Supreme Court in the upcoming Spring Term.

The post US Supreme Court to Deal with the Patent Enablement Standard appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC) and IP Osgoode are delighted to announce the 2023 edition of Canada’s IP Writing Challenge.

Our goal is to further enhance thoughtful and well-researched intellectual property public policy scholarship and discussion. We encourage a broad range of perspectives, and topics can be from within the various categories of intellectual property law including patents, trademarks, industrial design and copyright.

There are three categories for entrants this year:

• Law student category (LL.B, J.D., BCL, and LL.L students)
• Graduate student category (LL.M, S.J.D. and PhD students)
• Professional category (legal and business professionals who have been practicing 7 years or less, including patent agents and trademark agents)

The winner from each of category will be eligible for:

• A prize of $1,000 (CAD)
• Publication on the IP Osgoode website (iposgoode.ca)
• Consideration for publication in the Canadian Intellectual Property Review and/or the Intellectual Property Journal.

The deadline is Canada Day, Saturday, July 1, 2023, 5 PM EDT.

More details on Canada’s IP Writing Challenge are available .

The post Announcing the 15th Annual Canada’s IP Writing Challenge appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Prof. Carys Craig is the Director of IP Osgoode, Editor-in-Chief of the Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Academic Director of the Osgoode Professional LL.M Program in Intellectual Property, and an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School.

I am delighted to be writing my first IPilogue post as incoming Director of IP Osgoode! I would like to begin by thanking the whole IP Osgoode team, community, and partners for their warm welcome.

It is both exciting and daunting to step into the shoes of IP Osgoode’s Founder and outgoing Director, my colleague and friend Prof. Pina D’Agostino, whose creative energy and vision have been the driving force behind IP Osgoode since 2008. Under her leadership, IP Osgoode has become a key voice on intellectual property law and technology issues, forging fruitful relationships with academics, legal professionals, policymakers, and industry actors, while offering wonderfully rich learning opportunities to our students and graduate researchers.

With Prof. D’Agostino now at the helm of �첥��Ƶ’s newly launched Centre for AI and Society (CAIS), we are looking forward to collaborating on interdisciplinary initiatives at the intersection of AI and IP in our new respective roles!

While I am indeed new to the Director role at IP Osgoode, I was a founding member at its inception and have participated in many of its events and initiatives over the years. I have been teaching and researching in intellectual property law at Osgoode since joining the faculty in 2002 and have served as Academic Director of Osgoode’s Professional LLM in IP law since 2009. In other words, I am very well acquainted with all things Osgoode and IP!

Looking ahead, I am keen to bring my experience and passions to this new position. I take special delight in guiding our excellent students to grow as researchers, editors, and emerging thought-leaders—a role I have relished as Editor-in-Chief of the and will now embrace as Editor-in-Chief of the . I am a big believer in the creative potential of collaboration and the discursive exchange of ideas, and so I look forward to hosting the IP Osgoode Speaks Series, workshops, and conferences on pressing issues in IP and technology policy. As a former Associate Dean of Research & Institutional Relations, I am committed to strengthening our institution’s research focus and scholarly networks, and so I am keen to foster IP Osgoode’s existing connections and to forge new ones. And as a proponent of consultative, evidence-based policymaking, I am excited to continue supervising Osgoode student teams for the Federal Government’s Copyright Policy Moot, as well as helping to craft and coordinate joint statements from Canadian IP Scholars. Above all, though, I am passionate about nurturing new viewpoints and diverse voices in these critical conversations. This is an aspiration that has been, and will remain, central to IP Osgoode’s mission.

Over these past twenty years, IP and technology law has emerged as a hugely important area of law which requires an ever-growing need for expertise and thoughtful advice. In today’s dynamic digital environment, new challenges arise every day, throwing established systems and rules into flux. With a plethora of policy issues to be tackled—from generative AI to intermediary liability, copyright term extension to unused trademark registrations, and controversial new bills in Canada on online news and broadcasting—the field shows no sign of slowing down.  

At Osgoode, our IP offerings have grown over time to meet this challenge. When I was hired, I was the lone faculty member in the field, stepping into the shoes of my venerable colleague Professor . Prof. Vaver has since returned to the Osgoode fold, of course—an IP & Technology Law faculty that now boasts Professors , , , , and our most recent technology law recruit, Canada Research Chair in Innovation Law & Society, . With these inspiring colleagues, our dedicated , our fearless Assistant Director , and an incredible network of , supporters, and collaborators, I’m excited to see what’s in store for the IP Osgoode team—and thrilled play this part in making it happen!

The post A Message from IP Osgoode's New Director, Prof. Carys Craig appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Prof. Pina D’Agostino is the Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, the IP Innovation Clinic, and the IP Intensive Program, and the Editor-in-Chief of the IPilogue.

As 2022 comes to an end, I would like to thank everyone who has worked with IP Osgoode and made it as successful as it has become over the past year and since its very beginning in 2008.

When I first joined Osgoode Hall Law School as a professor in 2006, I dreamed of building closer bridges between academia, government, industry and expert hubs in Canada and around the world. I dreamed of engaging students, academics, legal professionals, and global community members in a meaningful, balanced, respectful, evidence-based and forward-thinking dialogue over IP and tech issues. With the support and partnership of some of my most treasured colleagues and mentors, this vision became IP Osgoode, the university’s flagship IP & Tech program that I founded in 2008.

In 14 years, IP Osgoode has engaged thousands of students, hundreds of partnerships across academia, government and industry, and has attracted over $3 million in public and private funding. We have hosted 101 events, including the first ever legal hackathon of its kind, and welcomed leaders from academia, industry, government, the judiciary, and private practice from around the world. The award-winning IPilogue has published over 3000 original blog posts and 1400 comments, written by over 200 IPilogue Team members, as well as guest writers from Osgoode and the broader IP community. With support from IP Osgoode, Osgoode has reached 7 IP moot finals, with one big win, 5 second place finishes, and one third place finish, and winning 4 further awards.

IP Osgoode has supported the development of my two other passion projects. Through the IP Innovation Clinic that I founded in 2010, over 200 students have helped almost 500 under-resourced clients to realize, protect, and commercialize their IP, saving cash-strapped clients over $2 million in legal costs that would have otherwise been billable and helping them secure funds that supported global operations and created new jobs. Through the IP Intensive program that I founded in 2010, 133 students have completed 10-week internships for academic credit with 26 partner organizations, a feat yet unparalleled by any other program.

Our countless student internships and graduate research opportunities have diversified the international IP law dialogue, and I am so proud of our alumni who have leveraged their experiences into successful careers and now give back to our programming and the wider community. I constantly hear students citing that they accepted offers from Osgoode so that they could join the IP Intensive and IP Innovation Clinic, and stories about prospective law students around the world being drawn to the force that is IP Osgoode.

As 2022 comes to an end, I share that my own tenure as Director of IP Osgoode also ends as I transition to my new role as the Founding Co-Director of the newly minted �첥��Ƶ Centre for AI & Society (CAIS). I will continue to work on the IP Innovation Clinic and the IP Intensive and look ahead with excitement to continuing to grow these initiatives. I will cherish the lessons I have learned and the relationships I have built at IP Osgoode and will continue to empower my students and community to make their mark in the innovation ecosystem.

As of January 1, 2023, I am delighted that my colleague, Prof. Carys Craig, will take over as Director of IP Osgoode, and I wish her all the best in guiding our students forward and lifting IP Osgoode to new heights.

I wish you all a very Merry Christmas, a Happy Holiday Season, and a healthy, successful, and creative New Year!

Warmest wishes,

Prof Pina D’Agostino

Founding Director, IP Osgoode

The post Happy Holidays and Wishing Everyone a Bright New Year! appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Xiang is an IPilogue Writer, a Senior Fellow with the IP Innovation Clinic, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Is technology’s rapid rise really a great equalizer for improving social welfare globally? 

Professor Ruth L. Okediji is the Jeremiah Smith Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where she teaches contracts, international IP, patents, copyright, and courses on Biblical Law. She is also the Co-Director of Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. Her research and scholarship focus on examining innovation policy, the digital economy, and global knowledge governance. On September 29th, students and staff at Osgoode Hall Law School were honoured to welcome Professor Okediji in person at Osgoode, where she delivered a lecture on ‘’.��

The paradox is outlined as followed: while the existence of intellectual property (IP) protection is often justified by its contributions to improving human welfare (such as incentivizing innovators to create public goods), the benefits of technological improvements protected by these same systems are, in reality, not, experienced equally. .  Legal regimes, including the IP system, often work to facilitate and increase global inequality by accruing wealth for their holders in the global north. However, this system often decreases the value of labour and unilaterally defines protectable subject matter based on imperialist norms.

In the tech sector, “skill-biased” advancements increasingly reduce opportunities for low-skilled workers, while elevating the productivity and earnings of high-skilled workers. Increasing prices of technology have only served to further disparities in access and skill development. The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, along with the effects of the recent pandemic, have also played significant roles in displacing human labourers. In terms of overall welfare, IP injustice is almost exclusively felt from the bottom-up.

In her lecture, Professor Okediji briefly charted the history of technological imperialism, and highlighted the structural, demographic, geographic, and cultural inequalities that arise from the modern IP regime. IP protection may no longer be said to primarily generate rewards and incentives for creativity and innovation. Instead, the structure of the modern IP system lends itself to be used as a vehicle to accumulate wealth and investment for the already affluent. Individuals and companies commonly  engage in the strategic purchasing of critical blocking patent portfolios. For example, the rise of patent trolls, who litigate cheaply-bought patents, use the IP system as a legal weapon. Moreover, damage demands in litigation cases involving IP are rising. In 2021, for patent infringement relating to chip-making technology – one of the highest ever patent damage awards in the US. As modern IP regimes continue to tend towards serving purely economic interests, one cannot help but concede to the significant role that the modern IP system plays in perpetuating economic inequality. 

The global IP system is also ill-suited for the needs of developing economies. Not only is it inherently embedded in colonial traditions, even modern agreements such as TRIPS that seek to tie IP protection with trade policy effectively coerce developing nations into accepting stronger IP standards that are ill-suited to their needs. . Formal IP protection requirements such as standards of fixation, originality/novelty, individual ownership, or limited terms of protection, are all deeply rooted in Western ideals and norms, and often preclude valuable conceptions of innovation and creativity from Black and Indigenous populations in particular. 

Emerging scholarship increasingly demonstrates how inequality is embedded in the very foundations of IP law. In considering proposals for doctrinal reform in order to address these inequalities, Professor Okediji emphasizes the need to thoroughly explore related institutional and technological trade-offs, and advocates for radical transformation. Exceptions to international IP standards, enforcing mandatory licensing provisions, or speaking about “access” as the primary measure of equality may no longer be enough. Instead, we should focus on engendering educational reform in law schools, boosting literacy, improving the quality of education in marginalized communities, or developing and ameliorating community healthcare systems. Just as the problem is deep-rooted, the solution must be as well.

The post Osgoode Welcomes Professor Ruth L. Okediji: “The Paradox of Intellectual Property Injustice” appeared first on IPOsgoode.

IP Innovation Clinic Fellows (3-5 positions)

It is expected that the majority of the work done by students will relate to patent and/or trademark law. The remaining time would be spent working on other IP-related and start-up business related needs as they arise. The students’ work will be supervised by lawyers from Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Bereskin & Parr LLP, and OWN Innovation and may include:

• Reviewing business transactions involving IP
• Assisting with various steps in the patent prosecution process (i.e.: conducting prior art searches, reviewing patent specifications, etc.)
• Performing freedom-to-operate and clearance searches
• Performing trademark searches
• Reviewing IP Agreements and licensing assistance
• Conducting legal research

Term: September 2022 – April 2023, with a possibility to continue on for the 2023 summer term.

Note: Please note the position is a part-time volunteer position. Students may claim OPIR hours for work done at the IP Innovation Clinic.

���ϳܲ������ھ������پ��DzԲ�:

• an interest in IP law, technology and commercialization issues
• responsiveness and a commitment to client service
• attention to detail and ability to write clearly and concisely
• excellent time-management, organizational, and interpersonal skills
• you must be a 1L, 2L, 3L, or LL.M student at Osgoode Hall Law School
• completion of the Legal Values: IP Commercialization Seminar course is not required but would be considered an asset
• completion of the Intellectual Property or Patents course is not required but would be considered an asset

Application Process:

�ٱ𲹻�����Ա�:��Wednesday, September 7, 2022

Please provide the following materials via email to ipinnovationclinic@osgoode.yorku.ca:

• One-page cover letter (briefly outlining your interests in IP law)
• Copy of your resume and unofficial grades
• A sample of your written work (max. 750 words)

Only those selected for an interview will be contacted.

The post CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: IP Innovation Clinic Fellows (2022/23 Academic Year) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

If you are passionate about writing and interested in building your presence or being published in IP law, this is a great opportunity for you.

IPilogue Writers will be in charge of contributing timely articles related to IP law, technology, and related legal issues to the blog.

Term: September 2022-April 2023 (with possibility of continuing into the summer)

Benefits:

• Profile on our website with a link to all of your articles
• Byline with photo on the articles that you contribute
• Network of contributors to share ideas and collaborate with other writers

Responsibilities:

• Contribute at least 1 article every 2 weeks (for a minimum of 8 articles over the term); Writers may contribute more articles earlier in the year to be spaced out over the term
• Keep track of articles written

Qualifications:

• Exemplary writing, research, and analysis skills
• Interest in learning about IP law and technology issues
• Respect/openness for differing opinions and evidence-based issue analysis
• Preference will be given to:
  • Osgoode JD or LL.M students
  • Writers who have actively contributed to the IPilogue in the past

Application Details

The deadline to apply for all positions is Friday, September 9, 2022. To submit your application, please send the following documents to iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca:

• Cover letter (outline your interest in IP law, as well as your relevant writing/editing experience)
• ��é���ܳ�é
• Updated Transcript (unofficial is acceptable)
• Writing Sample: a 750 word (max) blog article about an IP issue

Please note that this position is part-time and voluntary. 

Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions. We thank all applicants for their interest. We will only contact those selected for an interview.

The post CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: IPilogue Writers (Academic Year 2022/23) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is an IPilogue Writer and an incoming 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Soon, manufacturers will be able to use NIH-licenced technologies to develop COVID-19 technologies for sale and distribution to low and middle-income countries. This is because the has finalized its its NIH-owned COVID-19 technology patents to the and the ’s (WHO) ). There will be a total of shared, including technologies supporting vaccine development, drug and diagnostic development, and prospective vaccine candidates. These technologies will be brought under a global and non-exclusive licence. Additionally, under the agreement, the NIH for products licensed in the United Nations’ .

While it may feel like the pandemic is ending in higher socioeconomic countries like the United States and Canada, vaccination levels in low-income countries are still , at around 15.9% first-dose vaccination rate. This continues the trend of COVID-19 pandemic leaving low-income countries in the face of expensive, patented COVID-19 vaccines and drugs. Allowing manufacturers to access previously patented technologies to develop their own products can dramatically decrease the cost of accessing COVID-19 technologies. A wider pool of manufacturers creating their own products to supply to lower and middle-income countries means they must compete with other manufacturers to keep the cost of products low.

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists across the globe raced to develop life-saving medicines that could end the global crisis. Those efforts are by intellectual property laws, allowing scientists to securely make scientific advances without the worry of another competing lab “stealing” their discoveries. Now, due to a combination of a well-developed COVID-19 scientific field and the global obligations of the United States, the NIH feels ready to agree to a global non-exclusive licence for several of its patented COVID-19 technologies.

This agreement finally comes after from scholars in public health, intellectual property, and scientists about potential global inequalities that could arise in vaccine and drug development in a global pandemic. Due to the lack of economic resources for lower-income and middle-income countries for vaccine doses and a to manufacture their own COVID-19 medicines, it was predicted that lower-income countries would be hardest hit. Additionally, from the beginning of the pandemic, health-advocacy organizations have for pharmaceutical companies to share their patent knowledge so that lower-income countries can produce their own generic versions of COVID-19 drugs.

While the sharing of NIH-licensed COVID-19 technologies comes as good news for lower and middle-income countries still grappling with the pandemic, this licensing agreement may have come too little, too late. The pandemic has already swept through a majority of nations where many lives may have been saved if there was quicker and wider access to the life-saving COVID-19 vaccines that the higher income countries had first access to.

In future global crises, the problem of balancing intellectual property protections with global cooperation and socioeconomic inequality will continue. Hopefully, the COVID-19 pandemic can shed some light on how future policy considerations can be made to protect scientific innovation while minimising the sacrifice.

The post More Accessible COVID-19 Technology on the Horizon: The National Institute of Health Licenses its COVID-19 Tech Patents to the WHO and the Medicines Patent Pool appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Founded in 1984, the Intellectual Property Journal (IPJ) covers matters relating to all aspects of Intellectual Property such as patents, trademarks, copyright, designs, trade secrets, and related areas such as privacy. The focus of the journal is on Canadian material with a mix of comparative and international law content. The IPJ contains articles, opinions, book reviews, case commentaries and writings on legal developments around the world. The IPJ accepts submissions from any interested parties, including students, provided that they meet a high standard of scholarly rigour.

The Journal, edited by Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino, is published by Carswell (three times per year.

Professor D’Agostino invites Osgoode law students to apply for the student editor positions. These editors will be responsible for reviewing and arranging for the peer review of journal articles, providing feedback to those who have submitted papers to the journal and coordinating logistical matters, including communicating with authors regarding deadlines and other journal policies.

Term:   Fall Semester (September 2022)

Time Demands: Approx. 1-2 hrs per week

Qualifications:

• An interest in learning about current IP law and technology issues
• Ability to write in a concise and clear manner
• Excellent organizational skills

Application Process:

Please provide via email to ����Dz����Ǵǻ�𰪴Dz����Ǵǻ��.��ǰ����.������������Tuesday, May 31, 2022 the following materials:

• One-page cover letter (briefly outlining your interests in IP law)
• Copy of your resume and grades

Please send any questions you may have to: iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca. We thank all applicants for their interest. We will only contact those selected for an interview.

The post DEADLINE EXTENDED - Intellectual Property Journal Student Editors (September 2022) appeared first on IPOsgoode.